On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 03:54:20PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Benoit Cousson <bcousson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > On 01/10/2013 15:17, Rob Herring wrote: > >> > >> On 10/01/2013 03:06 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote: > >>> > >>> + more DT maintainers folks > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I know this is mostly boring user space code, but I was expecting a > >>> little bit of comments about at least the bindings syntax:-( > >>> > >>> I'd like to know if this is the right direction and if it worth pursuing > >>> in that direction. > >>> > >>> The idea was to have at least some base for further discussion during > >>> ARM KS 2013. > >>> > >>> I feel alone :-( > >>> > >>> If you have any comment, go ahead! > >> > >> > >> Thanks for taking this on! > >> > >> This is interesting approach using the dts syntax, > > > > > > Well, this was discussed a little bit on the list, and it has the big > > advantage of re-using the parser already included in DTC for free. > > In term or readability, it avoids to re-defining a brand new syntax for > > people who are already familiar with the DTS one. > > > > > >> but I worry that the > >> validation will only be as good as the schema written and the review of > >> the schema. > > > > > > Well, sure, but unfortunately, that will always be the case :-( > > The bindings definition being quite open, there is no easy way to ensure > > proper schema / bindings without careful review of the schema. There is no > > such thing as a free beer... Unfortunately :-) > > > > > >> I think the schema needs to define the binding rather than > >> define the checks. Then the schema can feed the validation checks. > > > > > >> This format does not seem to me as easily being able to generate > >> documentation from the schema which I believe is one of the goals. > > > > > > Indeed, but I think is it easy to generate any kind of readable format for > > the documentation purpose if needed from the actual format. > > Otherwise, we should consider a schema format based on kerneldoc type of > > syntax to improve readability. I'm just afraid it will become harder then to > > define complex schema. > > > > BTW, what kind of documentation are you expecting here? Is is a text that > > can be added on top of each schema? > > I would expect the schema to replace > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/* over time. I think the thing that > needs to be worked out here is how to add free form multi-line text. I'm not convinced that's a realistic goal. As I see it, the fundamental difference between a binding document and a formal schema is that a binding defines both the syntax required of a node, and its semantics, whereas a schema defines only syntax - the semantics still need to be defined somewhere. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
pgpPqdUZUhyXt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
